"If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender... then what is the next step?" he said. "The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society.

Totally. Like when women got the right to vote, the next step was that sheep got the vote. Followed by dogs, flying squirrels, snails, and so on.

Or when prohibition ended and alcohol was legalized. The next step was marijuana. Then heroin, then cocaine, then meth. Now, you can't get into a movie without being forced to snort a line off a hooker's chest.

Or when abortion was legalized, people started getting abortions lawfully. But then they started aborting un-fertilized eggs, then it was mandatory hysterectomies, until finally the government was just going around indiscriminately punching men in the testicles.

The slope is slippery only because it's covered in your shiatty arguments.

Why not? To some folks, it is the same thing. Be prepared to explain why it isn't,and be patient when your explanationmay not be accepted.Likewise, be prepared for explanations why they're the same,and hope the other person has patiencetowards you when you explain why they're not.

miss diminutive:"If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender... then what is the next step?" he said. "The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society.

Totally. Like when women got the right to vote, the next step was that sheep got the vote. Followed by dogs, flying squirrels, snails, and so on.

Or when prohibition ended and alcohol was legalized. The next step was marijuana. Then heroin, then cocaine, then meth. Now, you can't get into a movie without being forced to snort a line off a hooker's chest.

Or when abortion was legalized, people started getting abortions lawfully. But then they started aborting un-fertilized eggs, then it was mandatory hysterectomies, until finally the government was just going around indiscriminately punching men in the testicles.

The slope is slippery only because it's covered in your shiatty arguments.

The argument that animals also have rights is a slippery slope?Or that children have rights?There's degrees to everything.Some become socially acceptable.Some become social hot potatoes.Others become unmentionables.

Nothing is ever carved in stone, when it comes to rights,who holds them,who doesn't,who may hold them in the future,who may lose them in that same time period.

miss diminutive:"If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender... then what is the next step?" he said. "The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society.

Totally. Like when women got the right to vote, the next step was that sheep got the vote. Followed by dogs, flying squirrels, snails, and so on.

Or when prohibition ended and alcohol was legalized. The next step was marijuana. Then heroin, then cocaine, then meth. Now, you can't get into a movie without being forced to snort a line off a hooker's chest.

Or when abortion was legalized, people started getting abortions lawfully. But then they started aborting un-fertilized eggs, then it was mandatory hysterectomies, until finally the government was just going around indiscriminately punching men in the testicles.

The slope is slippery only because it's covered in your shiatty arguments.

Mind if I borrow this? In return you can have the meth-addicted chimpanzee I married when he was two. He's not a bad piano player and can be convinced to do your taxes, but whatever you do, never let him out on Tuesdays after a harvest moon.

Bestiality is obviously different, but I fail to see how the arguments that are used for gay marriage do no apply equally to polygamy. The gay marriage argument is essentially one of equal rights where someone should be able to marry whomever they choose. Why could they not choose to marry multiple people? If we want to consider marriage a 'right' instead of a 'rite' then why can we deny it to people who happen to love more than one person?

This whole nonsense results from the legal definition of something being tied to one religion's definition of it.

Since the U.S. is a freedom of religion nation, it is inevitable that this conflict occurred, and the conflict itself is not solvable until we remove the tie between those definitons.

Couple of ways to do that:1. Eliminate the legal definition (no tax breaks, no notihng)2. Allow each religion to marry who they want (and then the only point of contention is whether a religion is recognized by the government or not)

Result: Get angry at him and make sure he loses his post over the outrage.

Really? And people accuse conservatives of derp.

I've always wondered where the bestiality correlation entered into the "logical" area. You'd think that in the institution of marriage, the ability to determine consent and an understanding of what each party was getting into would be pretty much required.

Until someone comes to explaining to me how it's cool to make the intensely screwy leap of thought from gay marriage to interspecies marriage, I'm going to consider anyone who thinks that's even a remote possibility to be off the reservation and unfit to determine policy.

In the meantime, if you've got an argument as to how that connection makes sense, without sarcasm, I'd love to hear it. I really don't know how this argument survives except on a rhetoric of bigotry and an assumption that the audience won't think things through. I'd like to assume I'm missing something, usually I am.

miss diminutive:"If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender... then what is the next step?" he said. "The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society.

Totally. Like when women got the right to vote, the next step was that sheep got the vote. Followed by dogs, flying squirrels, snails, and so on.

Or when prohibition ended and alcohol was legalized. The next step was marijuana. Then heroin, then cocaine, then meth. Now, you can't get into a movie without being forced to snort a line off a hooker's chest.

Or when abortion was legalized, people started getting abortions lawfully. But then they started aborting un-fertilized eggs, then it was mandatory hysterectomies, until finally the government was just going around indiscriminately punching men in the testicles.

The slope is slippery only because it's covered in your shiatty arguments.

Except that now we are talking about legalizing marijuana, and several of us think it would be right to legalize all drugs.

There is no logical escalation after abortion if you don't think that a fetus is a person or has any rights.

The fact remains that giving homosexuals rights begins by making people care less about what their fellow citizens do in their private lives. I personally don't give a shiat what two consenting adults do. I don't care if you want to fark your horse either, and if a dude wants to marry his boyfriend then it's A Okay with me. None of it is any of my business any more than what you decide to put up your nose or in your veins, right up until the point that it begins to interfere with my ability to lead a happy life.

The really sad part is that the leader of the opposition (the fellow who wants to be Australia's next PM) is very good friends with this douchebag, and only threw him under the bus because he knew he had to - he actually opposes gay marriage just as fervently as this clown (which, of course, makes him a douchebag, too).

miss diminutive:What should we make the upper limit of how many people can be married to each other?

Why should there be an upper limit? The argument is a rights issue. If marriage is a right, then the only limit is when it infringes on someone else's rights. Why would getting married to 10 or 100 or 1000 different people be infringing on anyone else's rights? So why would the government be justified in denying a right to these people to marry?

senoy:miss diminutive:What should we make the upper limit of how many people can be married to each other?

Why should there be an upper limit? The argument is a rights issue. If marriage is a right, then the only limit is when it infringes on someone else's rights. Why would getting married to 10 or 100 or 1000 different people be infringing on anyone else's rights? So why would the government be justified in denying a right to these people to marry?

Would all 1000 spouses be afforded the benefits normally afforded to married couples? There's more to the issue than whether or not someone else's rights are infringed upon.

Wodan11:This whole nonsense results from the legal definition of something being tied to one religion's definition of it.

Since the U.S. is a freedom of religion nation, it is inevitable that this conflict occurred, and the conflict itself is not solvable until we remove the tie between those definitons.

Couple of ways to do that:1. Eliminate the legal definition (no tax breaks, no notihng)2. Allow each religion to marry who they want (and then the only point of contention is whether a religion is recognized by the government or not)

RealFarknMcCoy2:The really sad part is that the leader of the opposition (the fellow who wants to be Australia's next PM) is very good friends with this douchebag, and only threw him under the bus because he knew he had to - he actually opposes gay marriage just as fervently as this clown (which, of course, makes him a douchebag, too).

It's only one of the eleventy billion things that make both of those clowns a douchebag.

senoy:miss diminutive:What should we make the upper limit of how many people can be married to each other?

Why should there be an upper limit? The argument is a rights issue. If marriage is a right, then the only limit is when it infringes on someone else's rights. Why would getting married to 10 or 100 or 1000 different people be infringing on anyone else's rights? So why would the government be justified in denying a right to these people to marry?

Because if you marry Becky, then I can't. So, the next logical step is bigomy, so we can both be married to her.

But seriously, I don't see why the government is in the marriage business at all. You want to love someone and live with them for the rest of your life? Just do it! If me and Tom and Wendy and Sally and Dave and Svetlana all wanna live together and be one big multi-person marriage, why do we need our sigantures on a piece of paper in a cellar with no lights in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that says Beware of Leopard? We don't, we can do it all on our own.

"Consent! B-b-but consent! Poor analogy because there is no consent!!!" Just to head the consent morans off at the pass........

• Do you eat meat or have you ever eaten meat? Did the animal consent to being slaughtered?• Do you own a pet or have you ever owned a pet? Did they consent to you owning them?• Do you engage in activities that your pet finds pleasurable? eg. Walking up to your dog and scratching it behind the ear. Do they give consent? How do you get consent?• What about other activities that your pet might find pleasurable? eg. ROGERING IT UP THE DATE. How does this differ from the example above in terms of consent?• Do animals have the same rights as humans? If you were stuck in a burning building would you have no objection to the firemen rescuing the goldfish while you waited your turn?

I'm prepared to accept the "consent" argument as long as people aren't being hypocrites. Which means three - count 'em: three, people on this entire planet are allowed to use that argument.

Why yes, the term "liberal" si completely meaningless - and anybody who applies it as a label is an idiot. But I already knew that from reading Fark, and seeing all the IQ-80 douchbags whose idea of a cold burn is to call somebody a "liberal".

senoy:miss diminutive: Would all 1000 spouses be afforded the benefits normally afforded to married couples? There's more to the issue than whether or not someone else's rights are infringed upon. The benefits afforded by marriage are a separate issue. A tax break is not a right. If the tax laws are screwy, you fix them, You don't deny rights because Congress can't pass good legislation.

Result: Get angry at him and make sure he loses his post over the outrage.

Really? And people accuse conservatives of derp.

I've always wondered where the bestiality correlation entered into the "logical" area. You'd think that in the institution of marriage, the ability to determine consent and an understanding of what each party was getting into would be pretty much required.

Until someone comes to explaining to me how it's cool to make the intensely screwy leap of thought from gay marriage to interspecies marriage, I'm going to consider anyone who thinks that's even a remote possibility to be off the reservation and unfit to determine policy.

In the meantime, if you've got an argument as to how that connection makes sense, without sarcasm, I'd love to hear it. I really don't know how this argument survives except on a rhetoric of bigotry and an assumption that the audience won't think things through. I'd like to assume I'm missing something, usually I am.

I'll offer one.

Since animals as marriage partners is obviously too far, and gay marriage is the topic of the day, the point is that there seems to be some boundary which is too far to accept. By establishing that there is indeed an upper limit, the person can now argue that the appropriate placement of such a boundary is one which excludes gay marriage.

Basically it's a rhetorical process to establish the fact that it isn't inherently wrong to discuss that there should be a limit.

(Personally I'm opposed to marriage as a government institution. Hetero included)

Why yes, the term "liberal" si completely meaningless - and anybody who applies it as a label is an idiot. But I already knew that from reading Fark, and seeing all the IQ-80 douchbags whose idea of a cold burn is to call somebody a "liberal".

Of course it's meaningless....out of context. And playing on the differences between the context in one location and the context in another location is amusing to me. Mostly because of the knee-jerk reactions of people to certain words, such as "liberal".

Result: Get angry at him and make sure he loses his post over the outrage.

Really? And people accuse conservatives of derp.

I've always wondered where the bestiality correlation entered into the "logical" area. You'd think that in the institution of marriage, the ability to determine consent and an understanding of what each party was getting into would be pretty much required.

Until someone comes to explaining to me how it's cool to make the intensely screwy leap of thought from gay marriage to interspecies marriage, I'm going to consider anyone who thinks that's even a remote possibility to be off the reservation and unfit to determine policy.

In the meantime, if you've got an argument as to how that connection makes sense, without sarcasm, I'd love to hear it. I really don't know how this argument survives except on a rhetoric of bigotry and an assumption that the audience won't think things through. I'd like to assume I'm missing something, usually I am.

I'll offer one.

Since animals as marriage partners is obviously too far, and gay marriage is the topic of the day, the point is that there seems to be some boundary which is too far to accept. By establishing that there is indeed an upper limit, the person can now argue that the appropriate placement of such a boundary is one which excludes gay marriage.

Basically it's a rhetorical process to establish the fact that it isn't inherently wrong to discuss that there should be a limit.

(Personally I'm opposed to marriage as a government institution. Hetero included)

(I personally agree with your parenthetical.)

I never was good at debate/rhetorical tactics, so that's really a fascinating way to look at it. But I really think that the Bestiality subject takes it beyond normal thinking into some kind of indoctrination realm. Which is subjective.. I suppose the most important part of the bullet point is that it gathers the most believers from the most likely audience.

Easy. Animals are not people, anymore than vibrators are. Sex with animals is therefore morally/legally the same as masturbation. Or at least should be. Assuming that human(s) involved consented to the sex, then the sex was consenual. You can't rape a dog any more than you can rape an apple pie.

But sex with animals is different from marrying animals. Marriage is a contract, and animals cannot enter into contracts. (Nor can vibrators, for that matter).

stonicus:Speed limit at 55? The next logical step is clearly to have speed limits set to 250mph...

I'm not sure if you knew this, but when the national speed limit of 55 was instituted, it was lower than many of the pre-existing speed limits on the affected highways. Also, speed limits HAVE been creeping upwards in many locations. For example, there is now a toll road in Texas with an 85MPH speed limit. You might have chosen a poor example.

Having sex with an animal and getting married to an animal are two completely different things. Marriage requires a conscious act of commitment from both parties, in the case of animal marriage, one of the parties is incapable of making that conscious decision. It's why you can't marry a person in a persistent vegetative state or a person with Alzheimer's.

The sex with animals thing is a completely different issue. Right now, animals are property. I don't disagree with that; however, we have plenty of precedent that the government can regulate how we use our property. They do it all the time. I'm not allowed to add an additional story to my house or build within so many feet of the road. I can't burn my trash at certain hours or fire a handgun in city limits, etc., etc. Now one could make the argument that government is overregulating by not letting you have sex with your property. This is not the same argument that is used for gay marriage.

senoy:miss diminutive: Would all 1000 spouses be afforded the benefits normally afforded to married couples? There's more to the issue than whether or not someone else's rights are infringed upon. The benefits afforded by marriage are a separate issue. A tax break is not a right. If the tax laws are screwy, you fix them, You don't deny rights because Congress can't pass good legislation.

So technically, if it's simply a rights issue, once the right to marry as many people as you want is granted then the entire state of Florida could marry one another?

Tax breaks are only one of the many benefits afforded married couples. There's also parenting rights, custodial rights, funeral and bereavement leave, disability payments, next of kin status for emergencies, making medical decisions, joint adoption, inheritance rights, spousal rights in court etc etc etc...

Marriage affords rights and responsibilities, why else do you think same sex and polygamist groups want their unions recognized?